If you believe in evil- what does evil mean to you?

[YoureBeingASillyBilly]

Inspired by comments about recent news stories.

I am atheist and struggle (in fact get quite pissed off) when people describe people as 'evil' or having committed 'evil acts'.

To me evil doesnt exist. Its is just as made up as 'god' and used to keep 'good' believers in line. Calling someone evil is, to me, just the same as calling someone 'godly' however when evil is used it feels like its is being used to (understandably) declare a 'difference' between the person saying it and the person it is being said about. Of course most of us would never do such horrible things like have been in the news recently and consider ourselves incapable but we are just as human and in reality as capable (in that we have the ability)of such acts. To call them evil seems to me to be implying there is another force at work within that person that does not live within 'us' (the 'good' people). This is what i struggle with. I think it's an unhelpful or unhealthy way to think of them although i cometely understand the need to declare a difference between 'us' and 'them'.

However, on MN previoulsy people have said that they dont share my idea of what evil is so they are not doing what i think they are doing when they call someone evil.

So i would really appreciate if some could explain to me what they mean when they talk of evil. What does it mean to you?

TIA

Also, i really intend no offence by my comments but understand it is an emotive topic and accept that others will strongly disagree with my opinion.

[BillyBanter]

YY garlic and briefly.

Different countries have very different % of people considered to have x y or z mental illness for instance.

"Except on agreed items like adultery, murder, rape, child abuse." I'm not sure there is as much agreement on those as you seem to think.

[YoureBeingASillyBilly]

Good? Improves a situation, benefits a person. Their day/week/life is better because of an act. I know that my friend did a good thing when she lent me some money because it meant i could eat and had electic- i felt better because of her actions. If she had taken money from me i would have been hungrier for longer and colder for longer. I would have felt worse. Taking money from me would have been a bad thing.

[SinisterSal]

Adultery myrder rape child abuse and stealing are all 'frowned upon'. To different degrees, different mitigations, different exceptions, but afaik they are all universally recognised as wrong.

[SinisterSal]

So that's a discrete, non relative act of good, SillyBilly

You don't need evil as a counterpoint

Causing to suffer is 'evil' then.

[garlicbaubles]

I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to join this discussion after saying I don't believe in 'evil'. It's a pity, I would have liked to.



Sal, you can't define it as causing to suffer, because causing pain can sometimes be necessary - either for the further good of the sufferer, or for the good of others is greater measure than those who suffer.

[garlicbaubles]

• in greater measure

[SinisterSal]

causing to suffer for one's own pleasure, then? No justification. Just a kind of zero sum game

[MostlyLovingLurchers]

Suffering and evil do not necessarily equate. Nature is full of suffering without any intent. Would you describe a lion ripping a gazelle to shreds as evil?

[YoureBeingASillyBilly]

Sal- causing to suffer is bad. I agree with that. I'm still not sure that means evil. Although i am aware my upbringing is having a big influence on what i have taken 'evil' to mean.

[YoureBeingASillyBilly]

Garlic i hope i havent implie you cant join this discussion if you dont beleive in evil. Its definitely not what i think as i dont believe in existence of evil (or what i have believed evil to mean) either.

[garlicbaubles]

Interesting, Sal - a zero sum game is the nearest I get to defining evil. I think they are grounded on antisocial values. But a lot of people play them quite happily, convinced of their moral okayness.

I have known a sadistic psychopath very well. He caused suffering - not exactly for pleasure, although he did get pleasure out of it. He described it as more like curiosity, he wanted to watch what would happen. He had no 'compunction'. But he wasn't, like the personification of evil or anything. He was full of sadness, and of course did some very good things. Some heroic things, actually, which are probably easier for a man without 'compunction'.

Mostly, I was thinking about cats playing with mice! If they were human, we'd call that 'evil'.

[SinisterSal]

No there are no evil lions.
But the lion kills for meat.

The evil person would kill for personal gratification, not to protect, to eat or anything else but for the sheer pleasure of causing suffering/pain/fear. Zero sum. A direct transfer that the victims pain becomes the perpretrators pleasure. Is evil the intent, then, rather than the act?

[garlicbaubles]

Thank you, Youre :)

[SinisterSal]

satisfying one's curiosity is pleasurable, though

[garlicbaubles]

Yes ... and the suffering was part of the payback, for him. It's extraordinary how fundamental empathy (or theory of mind) is to our understanding of morality.

I think this is why 'othering' is so crucial to successful campaigns against people: when we convince ourselves they're not quite human like us, we relieve ourselves of caring about their life experience. Sociopaths have already 'othered' everyone else, by the nature of their disorder.

I am utterly terrified by the 'othering' that's going on in our society, right now - but I still wouldn't want to dehumanise the bastards who are doing it! (I can think of some things I would like to do them, though!)

[SinisterSal]

that's a very interesting point, about sociopaths having automatically 'othered' everyone else.

It's extraordinary how fundamental empathy (or theory of mind) is to our understanding of morality.
I wonder about this. Sweeping generalisation alert. But one of the features of the Abrahamic religions is the emphasis placed on the individual. You can especially see this in the New Testament, Every sparrow that falls, all that. Obviously we are heavily influenced by that, in comparison to say the more community focused systems like Confucianism. So you can see where the theory of mind and respect for the individual experience grew from. So I wonder would other understandings of morality have slighty different shadings, more of an emphasis on trangressions of the social mores?

[garlicbaubles]

I dunno. My current understanding is that 'empathy' has evolved in response to human need to live in communities - we're pretty feeble as animals go, but gain advantage by acting as groups. A community with a high proportion of non-empathetic individualists would tear itself apart, leaving the 'winners' alone & vulnerable.

From this point of view, I see all cultural systems as dependent on empathy to survive. But I'm willing to be proved wrong! (And am being pretty circumspect in my use of the word 'empathy'. It's a bit of a woolly term.)

[msmiggins]

Altruism garlic?

[MostlyLovingLurchers]

In response to Sal's point re the individual, i think there is a marked difference between the Abrahamic faiths and the eastern traditions in this regard. Most eastern belief systems (generalising a bit here) teach that we are all ultimately one, all life is connected. So, to do harm to someone else is to hurt yourself, To be kind and compassionate to others is to be kind to yourself. This is why it is thought that we have an innate sense of right and wrong. When someone acts against this sense it is generally because they are detached from who they are and what they are (for all the reasons already mentioned), and so are lacking in empathy.

Re cats and mice, often animals do this is because they are honing their hunting skills, so although it may seem like wilful murder there is a point to it (they do seem to rather enjoy it though). Otters do this too with frogs - they will kill dozens in one go. It is not for food or for blood lust, but is how they teach their young how to hunt, although it can look like a pointless massacre if you find the carnage the next day.

[BackOnlyBriefly]

If we're ok with animals killing to gain an advantage for their offspring then what is actually wrong with humans doing it. The equivalent for us would be killing your neighbours to gain nutritious food, a warm house and money to pay for university and private medical care. If you did it to give your offspring a better chance it is logical enough.

If we did though then we'd have to spend all our time defending against neighbours doing the same things to us. We couldn't really send the kids to university because someone would be trying to kill them so they could get first place or a nicer room.

So it's not so much evil as impractical. If we just learned that it was in our own interest to work together then evil is just a label for behaviour that messes up the system.

Does that mean that all criminals are simply cheating or is there a smaller group that breaks the rules without the excuse of gaining an advantage who are worse?

[garlicbaubles]

YES, miggins, that's more like it. Thanks!

[garlicbaubles]

Evil is just a label for behaviour that messes up the system.

I agree with this, too. I don't believe there's any such thing as total selflessness - everything we do is for a payback of some kind, even if it's a maladapted emotional reward (eg, why I'm doing this instead of my laundry!) or a contribution to the communal favour bank.

Does that mean that all criminals are simply cheating or is there a smaller group that breaks the rules without the excuse of gaining an advantage who are worse?

There are, I think, smaller groups that break the rules for extremely maladapted emotional rewards. My psychopath dad would be among them. But psychopaths can live acceptably within society: they have to learn the rules the way we learn history, but they can do it IF they perceive rewards for making the continuous effort.

Which brings us back to the question, is 'evil' just a word we apply to the results of other people's unhappy psychology?

[MostlyLovingLurchers]

If we're ok with animals killing to gain an advantage for their offspring then what is actually wrong with humans doing it.

I guess the difference is our survival doesn't depend on killing (obviously humans have killed to further their own ends throughout history). A carnivorous animal who relies on hunting has no choice but to be a successful hunter, and in order for their offspring to survive to teach them how to be successful hunters. As humans we also try to equip our offspring with the skills they need for surival, just thankfully they are slightly different ones.

[Minnieistheglittermouse]

The difference here to my mind is far simpler. I've seen evil. I saw it in a person. It exists. Sadly. It's above and beyond 'bad' and this cerebral exercise. You are using evil as a theological or mental discussion. Might as well ask if we all feel the suns heat the same way. It's as useful, not.

I'll bow out now. As someone will make arguments as to why certain acts should be really ok. It's been borderline already with the assertion some acts can be 'pleasurable' and it's not much of a stretch to the next point.

It then concerns me as to the veracity of whose on the discussion. Not something I'm comfortable with.

[garlicbaubles]

It's a bit of a stretch to conclude the discussion's heading towards approval of malevolent acts, Minnie!